Zoe Kazan wrote the screenplay for “Ruby Sparks.” She also acts in it, playing the title character. Ruby is not born via the usual means, but is the magical physical manifestation of an author, who dreams about her, writes her and then finds her in his kitchen one morning.

FILM REVIEW

‘Ruby Sparks’

3 ½ stars (out of 4)

Rated: R for language including some sexual references, and for some drug use

Cast: Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina, Annette Bening

Directors: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Run time: 104 minutes

Charlie Kaufman would be proud of Kazan. “Ruby Sparks” is a metaphysical romance – emphasis on “meta-” – that quietly becomes a thought experiment. But unlike Kaufman’s “Adaptation,” “Sparks” is not about the trippiness of the metaphysics or the brazenness of the screenwriter to insert him/herself into the narrative. Rather, it examines and ruminates on the fluid and complicated nature of romantic relationships.

Paul Dano plays Calvin, the aforementioned author. Ten years ago, he penned a universally acclaimed novel that burdened him with a descriptor that makes him wince: genius. Now, he sits in his stark, monochromatic apartment, puts his fingers on ASDF JKL; on his vintage typewriter, and nothing comes out. His publisher is impatient for new work.

Calvin’s analyst believes his self-imposed social isolation is the root of the problem. The doc’s assignment is for Calvin to write a character that will accept him for who he is, faults and all. Ruby comes to Calvin in recurring dreams, and the pages come in a flurry of inspiration. He shows the work to his brother, Harry, (Chris Messina), who critiques it: “You haven’t written a person, you’ve written a girl.”

Next thing Calvin knows, his literal dream woman is standing in front of him, and he’s questioning his own sanity. Is she a hallucination? Can other people see her? He kisses her, and it’s absolutely real. He shares the truth with Harry, and the narrative becomes a clever exploration of the nature of her existence. It’s told exclusively from Calvin’s point of view, which is sympathetic, but is it trustworthy?

Calvin writes Ruby as a painter originally from Dayton, Ohio, and an adorable redhead with a quirky-colorful wardrobe and an affinity for his little dog, Scotty. But Kazan writes Ruby as a recognizable, complex woman, and grounds the narrative within the realistic emotional follies of the central relationship. Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (“Little Miss Sunshine”) direct the film with practical artistry and a clean, efficient hand, so the gimmick is part of the story, but never the whole story. The film is consistently subtle, funny and wise, even when it veers slightly off track tonally during the third act.

Notably, “Ruby Sparks” is an extension of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl phenomenon popularized by “(500) Days of Summer,” which also was about a man’s wrongheaded idealization of what a woman should be. Kazan explores the idea further, but doesn’t wink tellingly at the audience or sacrifice its ingratiating qualities at the altar of meta- self-awareness. The movie also tweaks the man-writes-his-own-story concept of “Stranger than Fiction” and the hurdling-writer’s-block character study of “Wonder Boys.” These films, as well as “Adaptation,” are all excellent. “Ruby Sparks” deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.